I agree with him, if you dont like what someone else is saying dont comment on it. You stated your opinion and he stated his, dont attack him personally by saying his doesnt know what he is talking about. That goes for everyone, especially the mods and admins. We should be leading by example. For all you know he could be a political science professor.

Fair enough.

there was a poll done for military members for the army times 11 october 2004 edition,

First question "if the presidential election were held today for whome would you vote" 72% sayd Bush 17% sayd Kerry

"do you approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq" 60% sayd yes, 23% sayd no

"Dose George Bush's actions wile in the national Guard make you more or less likely to vote for him?" 73% not much effect 12% less likely

"dose Kerry's combat esperiene in Vietnam make you more likely to vote for him?" 58% not much effect 12% more likely 21% less likely

"Do Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from serving in Vietnam make you less likely to vote for him?"65% less likely 24% not much effect


There was a few more polls done but these give the picture, there is also a lot of quotes from soldiers who have been / are deployed / family members of soldiers killed. Some supporting Bush some supporting Kerry, but the common theme is, the reasons for the war that were given may have been wrong, but the fact we needed to go there cant be denied by anyone who has been there.

There is also a huge number of Soldiers mad that so many people are using the war in a negitive manner, the common theme there is, how can you say the war is badly led when the majarity of soldiers and civilians over there say its being run well?

at the same time there is a huge tone that says Bush should have made sure he had the correct information and shouldnt have sent the soldiers in there till he was sure.


The basics are - Most non-military are using military reasons to bash bush, wile the Military who are living it every day use those same reasons to vot FOR him, More Military use Kerry's anti-war setiment to prove he wouldnt be a good Military leader, and more Non-military use that as a reason to vote FOR him.


Pure and simple, do your own reading, search the net, search official voting records, you will see that Kerry is anti military, he voted against military spending then uses the lack of military funds in his campain against Bush.

If your going to use military issues to judge the election dosent the opinion of the military, those who live with this dicision more then any civilian ever will, matter?

Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct9.html

For instance:
Or, just in the next paragraph:
Sounds like these marines believe in both the war and the way it's being handled, eh?

I'd like to hear your sources for your claims, too. :v:

...
Right. So hes saying that if the world doesnt see us going to attack for legit reasons, he wont attack.

You know why France didnt join us in the war? Look up France and Russia's involvement in the Oil-For-Food scandal, where they made BILLIONS of dollars off of Iraq. If Kerry is going to have to pass a 'global test' to defend the US, looks like we're going to be taken over and all converted to Islam, eh?

Cisyouc, I read it the first time. It's still not a flipflop. He's not saying he wouldn't do it at all anywhere. Moreover, Saddam was never a threat to the US, as anyone is aware of by now, so maybe doing something like letting the inspectors do their job instead of going to a war that's headed in Vietnam's direction would be a good idea. The evidence of WMD was dubious at best, discardable at worst.

John Kerry will make for a shitty president, but he's just not on Bush's level.

Where does he say it 'should' pass the test? No, it says and implies it 'has to'.

Lmao-- the UN inspectors. Right. It was proven that Saddam was capable of making weapons AND that he was harboring terrorists. News flash-- Summits don't kill terrorists. Saddam was intentionally ignoring the UN resolutions. Saddam is not stupid, I believe as others he moved his weapons program WHICH DID EXIST mind you, to Iran.

We know they had a developed weapons program, whether they actually made the weapons we're not sure.

I personally tend to believe the 'Warrior on the biggest horse' (Bin Laden's words) theory. By retaliating in Iraq, in a country that harbored a terrorists and a developed weapons program, we sent a shockwave to the terrorists. I believe if we went into Iran we'd have Saddam delivered to us within 48 hours. The Administration doesnt want to explain it like this for PR reasons. This however is just a theory of mine and is based on no direct facts.

If Kerry is elected President, I recommend Canada :|.

by the way
 

by the way, i wouldnt trust the UN as far as i could throw them...

i mean look at the food for oil program, never know they could of been paid off before

this would make sense... considering he had 3 months in between to move them next door to iran or wherever he wanted..

very first thing i put.

Now look at the statistics i wrote again

No saing that, if you take the 23% and just put there quote in what would it look like?

The same newspaper but the October 4th edition had a statment from the Commanding General in Iraq stating his frustration with the american media in Iraq. "During a bad situation wether its deaths or setbacks the american media is first there and first to ask questions, however when there is something good like a hospital opening or when americans save a life the american media is nowhere to be seen wile other countries are there in force."


My wife was doing some PR work, couldnt discuss much with me but this was a major consern of hers, I have many pictures of events that the american media never even mentioned, hospital openings, school openings, trash and sewer for the first time ever.

Maby its the fact i live on a military instilation and see more good stuff on the local news, and newspapers, as well as I get more information then the average person from the FRG, but what the news reports is so far from the truth.

I have had many conversations with family and friends from back home in PA, the news they see reported is so diferent from whats reported here, I would realy like just ONE realy source of information that isnt biased in one way or another, sourting through the BS is a full time job.





And Mel i did state right in my post that there was soldiers who were dissatisfied, there ALWAYS are. You will always be able to find soldiers with diferent opinions, however did that artical even have one quote from one of the many soldiers that agree with us being there or was it all one sided?

As to the Saddam issue, the first troops that went into Iraq had bodies of children and the elderly piled up to block there progress, Saddam was committing acts that made Hitler look like a kitten, but we were justified in taking hitler out but not Saddam? Hitler was attacking our allies so was Saddam, Saddam was allowing terrorests to train in his country, could go on and on about some of the stuff but if anyone wants to know they can look it up and read it.


Once again Saddam wasnt a direct threat to the US, but someone needed to take him out to protect the people who couldnt protect themseles...Why the US? well why not nobody else was gonna do it.

Everyone here is sexy!!!!

cept u :p
jk

Sources, people. Where are you getting all this? "It was proven that Saddam was capable of making weapons AND that he was harboring terrorists." - none of that was proven. Bush said it, yes, but that doesn't mean it was proven because Bush was dead wrong on a lot of issues (minor artillery tubes that could ONLY be used for nuclear crap anyone?)

At any rate, considering the only one who has cited a somewhat credible source in here is mattmeck (which I'm just going to believe because I don't have the time to discredit The Army Times - although I can't imagine a military magazine pumping out primarily negative news about the war) and I'm entirely too lazy to discredit them all, I'm just going to call it here.

No doubt that Saddam was a fucking asshole, but why not go after someone actually dangerous like North Korea?

Thats a very good question Mel. Thats one of the best questions I have seen here,

However using that same question, explain how Kerry wanting to pull ALL troops outa South Korea is going to help with that situation at all?


But then again how is Bush pulling troops from South Korea to Iraq helping?

Are you accusing Bush of doing in North Korea what Kerry said he'd have like to have done with Iraq? (Not to mention what we DID do what Kerry has suggested and it failed the first time around.)

And its not only Bush, its the entire Administration. And it WAS proven that Terrorists were training in Iraq. Nobody can deny the training camps FOUND.

I do not agree with the whole 'we went to Iraq to liberate them'. Its a PR diversion. I think thats one of the Administration's biggest mistakes...we went from 'disabling a union harboring terrorists' to 'disarming a union with WMD' to 'liberating the people of Iraq' and now back to 'disarming a union with WMD'. Stick with the first one, Bush!!

lol flip flop

Actualy is was England who told Bush that Iraq had WMD's, the CIA confirmed this at that time. So the reason Bush gave for going into Iraq may have been false but Bush did NOT know this at that time. This has already been beaten to death and proven.

And thats EXACTLY why the Democrats try and focus on the point of time where the focus was on WMD, not 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorists'

and how is that a flipflop, Melwin?

was a joke, señor

Kerry >> Bush. Bush lost popular vote to Gore, who sucked largness. Kerry, being much more well received in general, is gonna roast him...

Melwin, you have my backing. In general, most "conservative republicans" I ever get into debates with don't even know the basic facts, they just spew out GOP rhetoric. Kinda sickens me. Read and fookin' educate yourselves...

I hate when people talk about this. Why? Because thats not how the U.S. holds its elections, and it never has, so its pointless to bring it up.

Agree to disagree?

i love how he says "don't even know the basic facts, they just spew out GOP rhetoric. Kinda sickens me. Read and fookin' educate yourselves..."


we arnt the ones that just come in saying,
"KeRrY > BuSh !~11/`1/ fOr nO rEaSoN JUsT CuZ!~/2."

that could be a little paraphrase but was close enough ? :roll:



also, "In general, most "conservative republicans" I ever get into debates with"
how many have you had a conversation with, you sound like your 10 years old.

Bush OWNED in the third debate. No question.
Anything anyone else says is just spin.

vgsd
 

i didnt get to see it :cry:

but im glad to hear he did good, maybe he can improve his speech ability now? :D

Well, I missed debate. Was working my great job created by this booming economy, (**cough** less than half what I should be at with my training..) But cnn says kerry won this one too..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...oll/index.html

CNN always goes for Kerry.

My problem with Kerry, especially in the debates is that he never says what HE will do. He is always like "This administration has failed the american people, blah, blah blah" (I wonder how many times he said that in the last debate). In fact in almost every issue that was asked about during the debates, he blamed on Pres Bush, but he never said how he would fix it. He just says stuff like "I have a plan to fix medicare", "I will create new jobs", "I wont raise middle class's taxes", and "I will stop talking like a jackass and actually answer a question to the point". How is he going to do all the stuff he promised? I wonder if he even knows how he will keep his election promises if he wins. If you watch the debates (I recorded the last one), he never describes any of his plans in detail, which might be caused by the fact that his "plans" are nothing more than quick ways to grab votes and have no substance....

Yes I agree. I quote something I heard on the radio, "I'd be happy to listen to Kerry's plans if he would say them...and he better start soon."

Bush :(
Kerry :(
Conan O'Brian :D

ain't that the truth...


btw i like neither one of these canidates and cannot wait till either bush or kerry is done in 4 years....




but then we have hillary on our hands, ill be sure to start another post on that election........................
devil women

Curse you for saying the Devil's true name.

adgf
 

it must be heard... :(

DEATH TO ALL WHO VOTE FOR KERRY ... DEATH TO ALL






and a happy new year

That was a little...Nevermind.

Bush projected the same amount of money we now no longer own. Except for those in the top 1% of the country. =\.

The scarriest thing about the man is...DOMA(Defense of Marriage Act). I want one factual reason Same-Sex marriage should be banned. I don't see any reason for it. Please, if someone knows a factual legitimate reason why Same-Sex Marriage should be banned, inform me. Educate me. Any reason...Aside from anything stated in any religion. The only reason I see Same-Sex marriage banned is because of religious reasons. Whatever happened to seperation of church and state? ::shrugs::

Don't get me wrong, Kerry's no better. He's just as big a fool as Bush'll ever be, neither of them are the right choice to lead this country. I'm voting for Kerry, only because...well...I hate this, I've always hated this, this is a terrible reason to vote for someone but right now is not the time to be voting for Nader...(::laughs hysterically:: Man that was funny shit...) But Kerry is the lesser of two evils. ::Sighs:: I know, I know. Cliche.

That whole Dick Cheney's Daughter thing? BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION. You're not the only parents with a homosexual child.

As for Fox News...::Sighs:: If "267 DAYS 'TIL PRESIDENT BUSH IS RE-ELECTED" isn't partisan, I don't know what is. And Bill O'Reiley, man don't get me star--

Bill O'Reiley: "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIC! PULL THE PLUG FROM THE CPU! SHUT UP!"

Edit: Oh, By the way...John Kerry looks like a muppet...<.<...>.>

bush for prez :wink:

Id be EVER so glad to do so. Same-sex couples cannot procreate. Not by nature, not by science, nothing. The minute they can, then I'd be fine. I know that marrage isnt soley for procreation, however, allowing same-sex marrage would be promoting an unnatural communion that should not be supported.

dont agree on the marriage thing. If you like sticking ur wang in some other guy it's your business. and as long as you both love each other it's none of the government's concern if you want to get married. You can argue all you want,. but seperation of church and state is what it boils down too. There's no reason for gays NOT to get married, nothing thats not based on religion.

who are you to say what's natural and un-natural?

Women can still get pregnant, ever hear of a little thing in SCIENCE called Artificial Insemination?

As for guys, guess how many orphans there are that need adopting. quite a few. Your points are all invalid. Marriage was never about having children per-say, it's about finding somebody you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, same sex or not.

Nature?

Wheres the semen coming from? Not the other partner.

Right, but that doesnt mean they need to get married by law. And I said that. "I know that marrage isnt soley for procreation" Do I think they should get more rights? Yes. Do I think they should be able to get married? No.

I would usually type out a longer arguement to this, but ill get to it tomorrow when I have more time and energy.

I'm sorry for not understand where you're coming from, Cisyouc. I still don't understand or see a reason why not. If someone wishes to profess their love in the eyes of their god - or wishes to have their union be blessed by that of their gods, why shouldn't they be married? And as for under the law - why not? If heterosexual couples are allowed to be married under law than why not homosexual couples? Aren't all men created equal? Aren't we all entitled to the pursuit of happiness?

Sotonin: who are you to say what's natural and un-natural?
Cisyouc: Nature?

If nature is the deciding factor of what's natural and unnatural (Which I completly agree, it is. It is nature...so obviously -- nevermind.) Then why isn't it natural? Artificial insemination may not be natural, but why is Same-Sex marriage unnatural? I still don't understand, sorry. Please explain.